Alex123 wrote:Not necessarily. If the person wouldn't buy that copy anyway, no income is lost anyway.

Even if it's not stealing, then when you're describing is just unskillful greed - and that still breaks the 2nd precept last time I checked.

Just to remind us what the 2nd precept actually is, since the thread has degenerated into being about whether illegally downloaded music is stealing or not:

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

I really think that to say that downloading something without permission is "unskillful greed" to be a real stretch of the imagination.........greed?....hardly.....I really don't think that "unskillful greed" is a violation of the 2nd precinct....can you give a reference to support your view?When something is copied from the internet, or from a TV, or from a radio, or from a live performance, nothing is taken...nothing....nadda....zip....zilch....zero.....If people don't want to have their stuff copied then they should not place their stuff in the public venue where people have unrestricted access to it....its as simple as that......There is public space and there is private space (from a legal standpoint)....I have the freedom to record WHATEVER happens in a public space....my home is a private space and WHATEVER is in my private space of home I am free to record as this is my private space.....if internet providers send stuff to my private space then I have the right to do what I want with it....copy to my hearts content.........I DO NOT LET CORPORATE GREED INTERFERE WITH MY RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE TO RECORD WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE AND I DO NOT LET CORPORATE GREED INTERFERE WITH MY RIGHT IN MY PRIVATE SPACE OF HOME TO RECORD WHATEVER SOMEONE SENDS THERE.....if you don't want me to copy something from the internet then DON'T SEND IT TO ME.......its as simple as that.chownah

chownah wrote:I really think that to say that downloading something without permission is "unskillful greed" to be a real stretch of the imagination.........greed?....hardly.....

So it's not worth enough to you to pay for it, but you still want it anyway? Then how much do you really need it? I don't know how to classify taking something you don't need other than by calling it greed.

chownah wrote:I really don't think that "unskillful greed" is a violation of the 2nd precinct....can you give a reference to support your view?

It seems like people who argue this sorts of points are for more interested in arguing the letter of the teaching than learning from the spirit of the teaching. Sure, if you want to just look at the second precept alone, without anything surrounding it, then you can limit it almost entirely to stealing. Or you can look at the whole of the precepts. They are about abstaining from desires, and the second about desiring "things".

chownah wrote:When something is copied from the internet, or from a TV, or from a radio, or from a live performance, nothing is taken...nothing....nadda....zip....zilch....zero.....If people don't want to have their stuff copied then they should not place their stuff in the public venue where people have unrestricted access to it....its as simple as that......

This is how these people have chosen to make their living. Our country and our law supports this method of livelihood.

chownah wrote:There is public space and there is private space (from a legal standpoint)....I have the freedom to record WHATEVER happens in a public space....my home is a private space and WHATEVER is in my private space of home I am free to record as this is my private space.....if internet providers send stuff to my private space then I have the right to do what I want with it....copy to my hearts content.........I DO NOT LET CORPORATE GREED INTERFERE WITH MY RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE TO RECORD WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE AND I DO NOT LET CORPORATE GREED INTERFERE WITH MY RIGHT IN MY PRIVATE SPACE OF HOME TO RECORD WHATEVER SOMEONE SENDS THERE.....if you don't want me to copy something from the internet then DON'T SEND IT TO ME.......its as simple as that.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. No one is sending you anything. You are connecting to the internet and taking something. It is not being offered to you - it's just sitting there out in the open. When you connect your computer to the internet, does music just start showing up on it? Do little messages appear saying, "Hey, want this music?" Or do you have to go find it, then click download?

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

It was not given. You just took it.

The whole premise of this thread is feeble. "Does illegal downloading [because it's considered stealing] violate the 2nd precept [which says don't steal]"? You all seriously need this explained at length?

As I read it, the point of Buddhism is to improve yourself, not see what you can get away with. Put effort towards being generous, not toward taking.

andre9999 wrote:Also, I did illegally download music once. I wanted the Lionel Richie Anthology, but certainly not enough to pay for it. I think the Buddha would understand where I was coming from on that.

So is there an arbitrary line in the sand been drawn at Lionel Richie or does this justification apply also to the long lists of films and albums that I too want but certainly not enough to pay for?

Just kidding

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

BlackBird wrote:So is there an arbitrary line in the sand been drawn at Lionel Richie or does this justification apply also to the long lists of films and albums that I too want but certainly not enough to pay for?

The line in the sand is specific to Lionel Richie... it doesn't even include The Commodores. And it's not arbitrary!

"Does illegal downloading [because it's considered stealing] violate the 2nd precept [which says don't steal]"? .......................I don't consider copying something which is sent to my home as stealing...I consider it my right........if you don't want me to copy a song then don't send it to my home. If you don't want me to make a copy of something then don't put it out in public and don't send it to my home......in the beginning you could wander around the world and make a copy of anything that you saw and heard.....then some people figured that if they could interfere with your freedom to do this then they could make alot of money....so they got gov't's to pass laws infringing on our freedoms so that their friends could make alot of money.....it used to be that one could copy anything that happened in their home....then some people figured out that if they could infringe on the rights to do that then they could make alot of money......its as simple as that......people partnered with the coersive power of gov't to infringe on my freedoms so they can make alot of money!!!!!! I don't play that way....I have freedom and I use it....copying things in the public space and in my own private space is not taking anything that is not freely given........if you put something in the public space it is understood that someone can copy it....if you put something in my private space it is understood that I can copy it.........if you don't want your stuff copied then don't put it in places where people can do that and don't think that you have the right to infringe on someone elses rights simply by placing something in the public venue or sending it to their private home.....

DON'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS UNLESS THEY ARE FREELY GIVEN....especially if its just so you can make alot of money...this is true greed.........chownah

Thanks for your scribd link. If you ever get a chance, please upload Michael Carrither's Forest Monks of Sri Lanka . It's been out of print for decades now and used copies are priced in the triple digits.

Bodhisurfer wrote:personally I beleive it does break the precept which i interpret as not taking what is not freely given.

But the copied file to copy IS freely given. You are not breaking-in someone's house, stealing the good, and leaving the owner physically without it.

Copy is not the same as taking away the original, and information (all digital & analog media) is not a physical object like gold coins or whatever.

If you weren't going to buy something anyway, and copy it from a place where it is freely given, you are not even taking away the possibility of the other person making money.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:But the copied file to copy IS freely given. You are not breaking-in someone's house, stealing the good, and leaving the owner physically without it.

Interesting. So who contacts you specifically and offers you this file to copy?

Who offers you water to drink, and air to breath? Do you have to ask for permission to take these?

When you inhale air, or drink water, you are, in fact, taking what could have been used by others to survive. Do you feel guilty about this? Do you break any precepts by these actions?

When you copy, you do not deprive that person of water and air.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

The files may be freely offered by the person who is allowing them to be downloaded. But they are not being freely offered by whoever those files originated from. And I think that's the issue.

I have a feeling that the Buddha wouldn't have said "Don't take what isn't freely offered, but if someone else takes it and then offers it to, you then it's okay because technically you aren't breaking any rules".

If you hear a song being played and later you find yourself humming it....is this a violation of the 2nd precept?If you hear a song being played and later you sing it...is this a violation of the 2nd precept?If you hear a song being played and later you sing it and play along with a guitar...is this a violation of the 2nd precept?If you hear a song being played and later you sint it in the same style as ther one you heard and likewise with the guitar and you use your electronic drum machine to provide the rhythm...is this a violation of the 2nd precept? If you record yourself playingt he song poorly is this a violation of the 2nd precept?If you record youself playing the song so like the original that your friends can't tell the difference is this a violation of the second precept?If you record yourself playing the song so exactly like the original that when digitally analyzed the recording can not be distinguished from the original is this a violation of the 2nd precept?.If you sell any of these copies is it a violation of the 2nd precept?....if so then which ones?

chownah wrote:If you sell any of these copies is it a violation of the 2nd precept?....if so then which ones?

If you're not paying the songwriter/publisher any royalties, then yes.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Quite frankly I'm apathetic about the topic. Is copying music really harming your practice? No, probably not considering all the other unskillful things we do. Does copying music help you move towards enlightenment? I seriously doubt it.

If you need Dhamma to rubber stamp your music copying habits, then you can probably justify it by the precepts. If you don't copying music is a bad thing to do because of freedoms or liberties or whatever else, then you're fine regardless of the precepts.